This is an exchange with an atheist on Cadre blog. Apparently I had used Bigfoot as an example on some thing he read by me. I didn't even remember it but was intent on setting it straight.
The rest he's assuming I'm YEC defending literal Geneses. Why? God only knows but I guess he equates criticism of atheists arguing from science with creationism. Who is Billford? No idea. this is an unremarkable dialogue but if we can learn from it it is in observ n how off the mark he is making standard assumptions
The rest he's assuming I'm YEC defending literal Geneses. Why? God only knows but I guess he equates criticism of atheists arguing from science with creationism. Who is Billford? No idea. this is an unremarkable dialogue but if we can learn from it it is in observ n how off the mark he is making standard assumptions
Joe Hinman said...Metacrock=> bigfoot is not important. you don't seem to understand the issue involved.
Greg Billford A valid argument against SN is that it is an illegitimate category. If God existed, no reason to think he is less natural than the moon.
Metacrock=> No it's not, that's a totally invalid argument. First there is reason why it would be an Invalid category. what the hell are you thinking? Obviously God would not be natural because all things natural are contingent and God not contingent, The most important is because SN does not mean opposed to nature. you didn't read the article I advertised this morning.
Greg Billford Bigfoot, were he not an obvious hoax, would not be supernatural, but simply a cryptid, a real animal not yet classified by science.
Metacrock=> who said he was? In fact who talked about Bigfoot.
Greg Billford You claim you can test the supernatural, I'd like to know what criteria you use for deciding whether a miracle-claim is likely true or likely false.
Metacrock=> The criterion of the meaning of the term SN. It did not include miracles. Read the article The Original Christian Concept of The SN
Greg Billford Do you think the rules of evidence used in a court of law in the effort to get at the truth are a good idea? Or do you pretend to think they aren't good merely because you know your case goes right down the toilet if you use legal standards of evidence?
Metacrock=> Courtroom evidence is not suited to the issue of SN since it's not about transcendent reality.
Greg Billford Is hearsay generally inadmissible in court, solely because Court is an official proceeding? Or is it inadmissible because second-hand reports are more consistently unreliable than first-hand reports?
Metacrock=> I have no hearsay evidence. All my evidence is based upon empirical studies in academic journals.
Joe Hinman said...And you also don't seem to care that it is perfectly rational for the busy atheist parents of two kids to justify ignoring all miracle claims on the grounds that they could never provide for their kids or have a life if all they did was go around chasing down every miracle claim. Your liberal view that atheists will be saved too justifies dismissing Christian claims.
They don't have to. First of all no one is asking them to. Secondly I've done it for them Team of medical historians analyze Lourdes miracles and, Medical historian given access to Vatican Archives
How much time have you ever devoted to disproving the Muslim concept of hell? NONE, right? If that's wrong, give the link to your article in which you address the question of whether the Muslim version of hell is real.
how much time is needed I think it can be polished off pretty quickly:
(1) Disprove Islam disprove Muslim hell. Disproof of Islam: Isaac was given the promise not Essay. the promise was Messiah (Jesus) so no revelation supersedes that.,(2) I don't believe in Christian hell why should I believe in anyone else's?
"the Genesis story of creation" would not have read to the originally intended Israelite audience as a case of the earth forming by reason of a giant explosion controlled by laws of physics.
No creed and not Bible passage says we must accept Genesis creation story
How the originally intended audience would have understood the text as 'grammar' and 'context', and has grave implications for modern people who are so utterly deaf to Jesus that they actually think he required his followers to prioritize bickering about apologetics more than their simple preaching of the word and doing the sort of good works that don't involve indulging their sinful lust to argue.
yea what I've been trying to tell them. The only problem is atheists wont allow simple gospel they will mock and ridicule and make us take their arguments apart like I'm doing now.
"the story of Adam and Eve" - the major signal for fable is when animals communicate in human language, or communicate to human beings in human language. So the serpent's discussion with Eve about eating the forbidden fruit assures us that the author never intended the story of Eden to be taken as literal history, and therefore, if Christianity interpreted it to be real history so as to necessitate a Savior from sin, then it's theological basis is incorrect.
yea what I've been telling them
Joe Hinman said...I'm NOT ANY KINMD OF CREATIONIST I'm AN EVOLUTIPNIST.
"efficacy of intercessory prayer" - You mean that absurd Randolf Byrd prayer-test that you were trounced on at CARM back in 2001?
that's total bull shit. I mean you silly understanding that Byrd was not good. He had a fine study. what those CARM idiots know about study method ology you should write large on the bum of a fly. Byrd is a funny example because illustrates the silliness of message board arguments I began arguing that we could control for outside prayer and that was the big objection the atheists argued that one could not. When some studies suggested prayer doesn't';t work they started saying you could contro9k for outside prayer and I said you could hot.
as soon as they had a motive they switched positions but so did I; In the end I discorded all such studies because I don't need them. A more direct empirical methods offers better evidence see the articles I linked above.
One of the worst spicules the most hilarious those morons on CARM trying to argue study methodology.
"as well as paranormal phenomena like near-death experiences, telepathy, and precognition." - Sure is funny how the fundamentalist Christian apologists, who obviously realize they stand to gain much by defending that stuff, never dare. What's next, Sherlock? Ron Wyatt's claim of finding Pharaoh's chariot wheel at the bottom of the Red Sea is true because skeptics cannot prove it false?
you don't think some little minor consideration like truth might get in the way?
Apparently, why you believe what you believe is not even convincing to most Christians, when in fact their choice to believe biblical claims removes most of the presuppositions that otherwise prevent them from seeing things your way, and if they are saved, then salvation is supposed to give them a slight edge over atheists in detecting truth.
I am only responsible for my own beliefs. all I can do is make reasons clear and if others don't ace[t that is between them and their maker.
